Provides tools for listing pull requests, retrieving PR details and diffs, reading repository files, and fetching project metadata to facilitate automated code reviews.
Enables analysis of merge requests by providing tools to list MRs, fetch detailed information and diffs, read project files, and access repository metadata.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Code Review MCP Server Review the diff for GitHub PR #105 and check it for security issues"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP server designed to act as a Read-Only Intelligence Provider for code reviews. It connects LLMs (like Claude Desktop or Gemini) to your Git hosting platforms (GitLab & GitHub) to analyze Merge/Pull Requests, understand project context, and provide expert feedback.
Platform Agnostic: Supports both GitLab and GitHub.
List PRs/MRs: See what needs review.
Get Details: Understand the description, author, and intent.
Get Diff: Retrieve and analyze code changes.
Read Files: Fetch specific files from repositories at any ref (commit, branch, tag).
Custom Guidelines: Configure your own code review guidelines.
Related MCP server: GitHub Code Review Assistant
You can use this MCP server in two ways:
Install the package globally via npm:
npm install -g mcp-server-code-reviewClone the repository and build it locally:
git clone <your-repo-url> mcp-server-code-review
cd mcp-server-code-review
npm install
npm run buildThe server requires environment variables for authentication. You should add these to your MCP Client configuration (e.g., Claude Desktop).
Variable | Description | Required For |
| Your GitLab Personal Access Token. | GitLab |
| GitLab instance URL (default: | GitLab (Self-Managed) |
| Your GitHub Personal Access Token. | GitHub |
| Path to a file containing custom code review guidelines. | Optional (Custom Rules) |
| Inline custom code review guidelines text. | Optional (Custom Rules) |
Note: At least one of
GITLAB_TOKENorGITHUB_TOKENmust be provided. IfCODE_REVIEW_GUIDELINES_FILEis set, it takes precedence overCODE_REVIEW_GUIDELINES.
{
"mcpServers": {
"code-review": {
"command": "mcp-server-code-review",
"env": {
"GITLAB_TOKEN": "your_token_here",
"GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_token_here"
}
}
}
}Replace /absolute/path/to/... with the actual full path to the project directory.
{
"mcpServers": {
"code-review": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/mcp-server-code-review/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"GITLAB_TOKEN": "your_token_here",
"GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_token_here"
}
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"code-review": {
"command": "mcp-server-code-review",
"env": {
"GITLAB_TOKEN": "your_token_here",
"GITLAB_URL": "https://gitlab.yourcompany.com"
}
}
}
}You can provide custom guidelines either as a file path or inline text:
{
"mcpServers": {
"code-review": {
"command": "mcp-server-code-review",
"env": {
"GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_token_here",
"GITLAB_TOKEN": "your_token_here",
"GITLAB_URL": "https://gitlab.yourcompany.com",
"CODE_REVIEW_GUIDELINES_FILE": "/path/to/your/guidelines.md"
}
}
}
}Or use inline guidelines:
{
"mcpServers": {
"code-review": {
"command": "mcp-server-code-review",
"env": {
"GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_token_here",
"CODE_REVIEW_GUIDELINES": "Focus on performance and security. Ensure all functions have proper error handling."
}
}
}
}Add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json file.
Path locations:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Add the following to your settings.json file for global configuration, or .claude/settings.local.json in your project directory for project-specific configuration.
Path locations (global):
macOS: ~/.claude/settings.json
Windows: %USERPROFILE%\.claude\settings.json
Linux: ~/.claude/settings.json
Add the following to your settings.json file.
Path locations:
macOS: ~/.gemini/settings.json
Windows: %USERPROFILE%\.gemini\settings.json
Linux: ~/.gemini/settings.json
Add the following to your mcp.json file.
Path locations:
macOS: ~/.chatgpt/mcp.json
Windows: %USERPROFILE%\.chatgpt\mcp.json
Linux: ~/.chatgpt/mcp.json
Tool | Description |
| List pull requests with optional status filter |
| Get detailed information about a pull request |
| Retrieve code changes/diff for a pull request |
| Read file content at a specific ref |
| Fetch README and manifest files (package.json, etc.) |
Tool | Description |
| List merge requests with optional status filter |
| Get detailed information about a merge request |
| Retrieve code changes/diff for a merge request |
| Read file content at a specific ref |
| Fetch README and manifest files (package.json, etc.) |
Prompt | Description |
| Guided GitLab MR review with Principal Engineer perspective |
| Guided GitHub PR review with Principal Engineer perspective |
These prompts instruct the LLM to:
Act as a Principal Software Engineer
Focus on logic errors, race conditions, security issues, and architectural alignment
Provide structured feedback (Summary, Critical Issues, Suggestions, Nitpicks)
Request issue/ticket details for additional context
npm test # Run all tests
npm run test:coverage # Run tests with coverage reportnpm run format # Format code with Prettier
npm run format:check # Check code formattingThe MCP Inspector allows you to test the server and tool calls interactively in your browser without needing the Claude Desktop app.
Build the project:
npm run buildRun the Inspector: (Replace tokens with your actual values)
GITLAB_TOKEN=your_token npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.jsOpen: http://localhost:6274 (or the port shown in terminal).
ISC
Get details of a specific pull request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Repository name in format owner/repo | |
| prId | Yes | Pull Request number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are returned (e.g., title, status, comments). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving PR details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('repoId' and 'prId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters identify a specific pull request, which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific pull request', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_diff' or 'github_list_prs', which would require mentioning it retrieves metadata rather than diff content or multiple PRs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving metadata of a single PR (vs. 'github_list_prs' for multiple PRs or 'github_get_pr_diff' for diff content), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or repository access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the diff of a specific pull request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Repository name in format owner/repo | |
| prId | Yes | Pull Request number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether authentication is required, rate limits, what format the diff returns (e.g., unified diff, patch file), error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a GitHub API tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the diff output looks like, authentication requirements, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that fetches technical data like a PR diff, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('repoId' and 'prId') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples or constraints). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('diff of a specific pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_details' or 'gitlab_get_mr_diff', but the specificity about 'diff' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'github_get_pr_details' (which might provide PR metadata without diff) or 'gitlab_get_mr_diff' (for GitLab), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch project metadata (README and manifests)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Repository name in format owner/repo |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'metadata' includes beyond README and manifests. More details on behavior are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches metadata. It lacks details on return format, error cases, and the scope of 'metadata' beyond README and manifests, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the repoId parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('project metadata'), specifying what it retrieves (README and manifests). It distinguishes from siblings like github_read_file (which reads arbitrary files) by focusing on metadata, but doesn't explicitly contrast with gitlab_get_project_metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with siblings like github_read_file for specific files, or indicate when metadata fetching is preferred over other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List pull requests for a given GitHub repository
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Repository name in format owner/repo | |
| status | No | Filter by state: opened, closed, merged, all | opened |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List[s] pull requests' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of PR objects with basic info), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of PR summaries), behavioral aspects like authentication needs, or how it interacts with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (repoId and status). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of repoId or the meaning of status values. However, since the schema provides complete descriptions, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests for a given GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like github_get_pr_details (which fetches details of a specific PR) and github_get_pr_diff (which gets diff content). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the filtering capability by status, which could help differentiate it further from other listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over github_get_pr_details for specific PRs, or how it differs from gitlab_list_mrs for GitLab repositories. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing repository access or authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the content of a file at a specific ref
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Repository name in format owner/repo | |
| filePath | Yes | Path to the file | |
| ref | No | Commit SHA, branch, or tag name | main |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the content is returned in (raw text, base64, etc.). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with external APIs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward read operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that reads files from GitHub with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens with binary files, encoding issues, file size limits, or the response format. Given the complexity of file reading operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific ref' which aligns with the 'ref' parameter but provides no extra context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read the content') and resource ('a file at a specific ref'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_read_file' or other GitHub read operations, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for reading GitHub and GitLab data, but no indication of when this specific file-reading tool is appropriate versus others like 'github_get_pr_details' or 'gitlab_read_file'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get details of a specific merge request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Project ID or URL-encoded path | |
| mrId | Yes | Internal ID of the merge request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format might be, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, which are crucial for an agent to effectively invoke this tool without additional guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for repoId and mrId. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs without needing extra explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_get_mr_diff or gitlab_list_mrs, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to siblings like gitlab_list_mrs for listing or gitlab_get_mr_diff for diff details, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the diff of a specific merge request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Project ID or URL-encoded path | |
| mrId | Yes | Internal ID of the merge request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., diff output structure), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage or structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching diffs), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the diff output looks like (e.g., patch format, file listings), potential error conditions, or how it differs from related tools. This leaves the agent with inadequate context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('repoId' and 'mrId') with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the diff') and the target resource ('of a specific merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_mr_details' or 'github_get_pr_diff', which would require mentioning it retrieves the code changes/differences specifically rather than general MR information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_mr_details' (for general MR info) or 'github_get_pr_diff' (for GitHub equivalents), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing MR ID or appropriate permissions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch project metadata (README and manifests)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Project ID or URL-encoded path |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is fetched but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fetching metadata and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' entails beyond README and manifests, nor does it cover return values, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'repoId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('project metadata'), specifying that it includes 'README and manifests'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gitlab_read_file' by focusing on metadata rather than file contents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'github_get_project_metadata', which serves a similar purpose for a different platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'gitlab_read_file' for README access, or how it differs from 'github_get_project_metadata' in context. The description lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List merge requests for a given GitLab project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Project ID or URL-encoded path | |
| status | No | Filter by state: opened, closed, merged | opened |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read operation but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing merge requests (which may involve pagination, filtering, and authentication), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address how results are returned, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('repoId' and 'status'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or context for 'repoId' formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('merge requests for a given GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_mr_details' or 'github_list_prs', which would require mentioning it returns a list rather than details or that it's GitLab-specific vs GitHub.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'gitlab_get_mr_details' for detailed info or 'github_list_prs' for GitHub projects, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or project access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the content of a file at a specific ref
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repoId | Yes | Project ID or URL-encoded path | |
| filePath | Yes | Path to the file | |
| ref | No | Commit SHA, branch, or tag name | main |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Read') but does not cover important traits like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or output format (e.g., plain text, JSON). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a file-reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects such as the format of returned content, error cases (e.g., file not found), or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (repoId, filePath, ref). The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only implies the purpose of 'ref' without detailing semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read the content') and resource ('a file at a specific ref'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_read_file' or 'gitlab_get_project_metadata', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like 'github_read_file' or 'gitlab_get_project_metadata'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.1.2github_get_pr_detailsgithub_get_pr_diffgithub_get_project_metadatagithub_list_prsgithub_read_filegitlab_get_mr_detailsgitlab_get_mr_diffgitlab_get_project_metadatagitlab_list_mrsgitlab_read_fileThe tools are clearly separated by platform (GitHub vs GitLab) and action type (list, get details, get diff, read file, get metadata), with minimal overlap. However, the 'get_project_metadata' and 'read_file' tools could potentially be confused as both involve reading project content, though their specific purposes differ slightly.
All tools follow a consistent pattern of platform_prefix_verb_noun (e.g., github_get_pr_details, gitlab_list_mrs). The naming is perfectly predictable and uses snake_case uniformly throughout the entire toolset.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for code review across two major platforms. Each tool has a clear purpose and contributes to the overall functionality without being excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for reading and reviewing code across GitHub and GitLab, including listing, viewing details, diffs, files, and metadata. A minor gap exists in the lack of tools for creating or updating reviews/comments, which are common in code review workflows, but the core review capabilities are well-covered.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Code intelligence for LLMs. Analyze, search, and retrieve code from any public git repository.
Connect AI assistants to GitHub - manage repos, issues, PRs, and workflows through natural language.
AI-native git hosting — repos, PRs, issues, CI gates, and AI code review over MCP (60 tools).
Code intelligence platform for AI agents. 20 tools for architecture, security & impact analysis.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/danielefavi/mcp-server-code-review'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
